Teaching (no posting) The Baptism in the Holy Spirit – from Luke’s historical writings

[Biblicist]

The Baptism in the Holy Spirit – from Luke’s historical writings

This thread addresses the instances within the Book of Acts where Believers were born again and with how they received the Holy Spirit.

For those who have spent a few years within the framework of Full Gospel theology, it can be very easy to sit back and think that we have most of the key theological issues sewn up and that there is probably very little new under the Sun. So when I came across a book awhile back that mentioned that the classic-Pentecostal position with regard to subsequence was based solely on Lukan theology and that the soteriological (conversion-initiation) position is Pauline, I was certainly a bit taken aback to think that there is supposed to be two forms of theology in the New Testament. As the commentator was Frank Macchia who is a well respected Pentecostal scholar, I knew enough to realise that there was probably some substance to this view; once I began to encounter the same comments from other respected Pentecostal and charismatic scholars I quickly realised that I was 20 to 30 years behind the times.

Anyway, as it is essentially universally recognised that the Pauline Epistles do not speak of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being subsequent to our conversion-initiation experience, this leaves us with Lukes writings (Acts) to decide if Luke is actually saying this or that the position of subsequence has come about due to a possible misreading of his historical narrative.

Do the following passages support the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being soteriological (“conversion-initiation”) or of subsequence which is the position of denominations such as the AoG. Each of these passages will be addressed in separate posts:

1. The event where Jesus breathed the Spirit upon the Disciples (a Gospel account) John 20:21-22) Post#5
2. The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4) Post#6
3. Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:34-39) Post#7
4. The Samaritans (Acts 8:14-24) Post#9
5. Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:17) Post#11
6. The Roman Centurion, his relatives and friends (Acts 10:44-48) Post#12
7. The 12 Ephesian disciples (Acts 19:1-6) Post#13

Other topics

• Who was Luke
• Acts as a work of Ancient Historiography
• What are we to do with the term "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit"
• Is the Baptism in the Holy Spirit signified by speaking in tongues
• Ezekiel 36:25–27 and Joel 2:28,29

Classic-Pentecostals believe in subsequence where the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the accompanying evidence of speaking in tongues is received sometime after our initial salvation, the classic-Pentecostal refers to this as being ‘sealed’ in the Holy Spirit. The AoG is a good example of a denomination that teaches subsequence.

• It is important to understand that the classic-Pentecostal position recognises that ALL believers have the Holy Spirit within them, irrespective if they speak in tongues or not. They will see this ‘second-blessing’ as the believer receiving more of the Holy Spirit which is designed to better empower the believer for witnessing".

Most classic-Pentecostals would tend to refer to themselves as being simply Pentecostal and many may not even be aware that such a distinction exists. The two terms, classic-Pentecostal and Pentecostal are frequently employed within commentaries as they are helpful descriptors which point to the change within traditional Pentecostal circles with the growing shift away from the classic understanding where the Baptism is to be received at some indeterminate moment after our salvation, to the point where the classic position of subsequence is either heavily on the decline or simply not being taught.

As a Pentecostal (not a classic-Pentecostal) I recognise that the Scriptures indicate that the normative experience when we are first born again is that we immediately receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This does not imply that one must speak in tongues to be saved but that the eschatological ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) is a provision that is freely given or offered to all, where Paul tells the Ephesians (and us) in Eph 6:18 to “pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests…” If some either choose not to pray in the Spirit or haven’t been taught that the Scriptures tell us that this ability is freely given through the Holy Spirit then it is their loss.

1. Why is this topic so important​

When we look around at the Western sphere of the Pentecostal movement, particularly in countries such as North America, UK, Australia and within the EU, it does appear that when we move beyond our ‘Pentecostal speak’, we may have a movement that to a large degree has relegated the important distinctive doctrines of the Full Gospel movement to that which looks or functions more along traditional Evangelical lines.

“Unless Pentecostals can clearly define their distinctive doctrine, they, in one way or another, may succumb entirely to the Evangelical theological system and lose the unique dimension of our experiential theology”. Link​

This remark by Amos Yong who is a Pentecostal (Renewal) scholar reflects an increasing and often worrisome trend where many Western sphere (minority world) classic-Pentecostal congregations resemble more the historical Evangelical denominations where the power of the Holy Spirit is rarely evidenced.

2. Is it soteriological (conversion-initiation) or one of subsequence​

For those of us who maybe months or even years later experienced the ability to pray in the Spirit (tongues) for the first time (which is my own experience), I would think that most would be able to mark this as being a major moment in our spiritual walk. Here’s where the subsequence position on the surface appears to make some sense; many would be able to point to a specific moment in time when we gave our lives to the Lord, so when we add to this the point of time where we began to speak in tongues they can very easily be seen as two different infillings. Even though the charge can be made that we are maybe putting experience over the Word, as this ‘second’ experience can be a very implicating encounter, I would prefer to say that we simply misread this powerful subsequent move of the Spirit in our lives which we incorrectly viewed through the lens of it being a supposed second blessing. If we had of been shown from the Scriptures that we should have been able to pray in the Spirit at the moment of our salvation then this would not have been an issue for us.

For those of us who only began to pray in the Spirit sometime after our initial salvation and who were nurtured in a denomination such as the AoG who promotes the subsequence position, having been pre-conditioned to accept the subsequence position then it can be very easily to uncritically move forward within this particular model of thought.

For over a century it is virtually impossible to deny that the Church has begun to experience more of the Holy Spirit, which is particularly true since the onset of the powerful charismatic renewal of the 60’s and 70’s. Where the classic-Pentecostal traditions had re-introduced the experience, by the beginning of the 1980’s, the charismatic movement has provided the Pentecostals and the broader Church with the theology to better explain what it means to be Baptised in the Spirit.

3. Is the Book of Acts a collection of Theological treatise or primarily a reliable historical account of the first years of the Church?​

Irrespective if we see Luke’s writings as being either a collection of theological doctrines or that it is more of a historical narrative, the Book of Acts was still inspired by the Holy Spirit and is both accurate as a theological book and an historical record.

As someone who has moved away from the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being one of subsequence to that of the soteriological (or conversion-initiation) position, once I recognised that the Epistles made no mention of there being a supposed subsequent reception of the Holy Spirit and that we tend to misread many of the salvation events in Acts, then the move away was at least an easy one to make theologically but still a bit painful emotionally.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

Who was Luke and how did he compile his monograph?

My information regarding Luke and with how we should be classifying Luke’s work has been adapted from Craig. S. Keener’s monumental 4000 page four volume work on Acts (always enclosed within quotation marks).

One of the obvious problems with referring to Keener’s material is that this massive work necessitates that so much of what he has supplied has to be omitted otherwise this thread would be massive; as he has produced 638 pages of background (his introduction), this means that this particular thread cannot really do Keener’s work the justice that it deserves.

When Keener refers to “the majority of scholars” he is not only referring to Pentecostal, charismatic and Renewal scholars but also to those who are either Evangelical, cessationist or who are overtly liberal as his material has been designed to interact right across a broad spectrum of scholarship.

Who is Luke? (Pages 402-422)

This information is not particularly critical to the thread but it can be interesting to know how the scholars see Luke and where he came from.

Keener opens by saying;

“a majority of (but not nearly all) scholars agree that Luke was a Gentile, writing for a largely Gentile (or, perhaps more accurately, mixed Gentile and Jewish) Diaspora audience”.

“The author may have been a Gentile God-fearer who spent time with Paul especially during part or all of his Roman custody. On the basis of internal evidence, scholars debate whether the author was wither a Gentile Christian (for whom the Gentile mission in Acts is a matter of life and death) or a (Diaspora) Jewish Christian who was part of the Hellenist mission to the Gentiles. Plausible arguments have been offered for both positions.

Scholars often opine that the author was a God-fearing Gentile. From his geographical competence and his interpretation of Judaism, it is certain that he was not a Palestinian Jews. . . He may have been a Diaspora Jew with interests in the Gentile mission, but given his relationship to Judaism and perspectives, many scholars prefer the idea that he was a Gentile. Scholars who, on other grounds, identify the author with the Luke mentioned in Col 4:14 will likely also conclude that he was a Gentile”.

(Pg.404) “. . . if Luke travelled with Paul to Jerusalem as a representative of the Gentile churches, he was probably ethnically Gentile. If Luke was a Gentile Christian, however, he was probably either a Godfearer—an adherent of a synagogue before becoming a Christian – or a long-standing member of the Hellenistic Jewish Christian movement”.​

The term “Godfearer” does not imply that someone was either a proselyte to Judaism or even that they were either Christians nor even Christian initiates who maybe only knew of John’s baptism. When it comes to the Old Testament, “God-fearers’ were Gentiles who were not necessarily accepted into the life of the synagogue but they may have been respected for their services to the local Jewish community as was the case with the Roman Centurion.

When we apply "God-fearer" to Luke, this means that he may have been aware of the Christian message possibly through his parents or grandparents; it does not mean that he was a Christian before he met Paul.

(Pg.410) “Classicists normally start with the external evidence, the most concrete evidence we have, If the author was a companion of Paul, the tradition that this companion was “Luke,” a physician (Col 4:14), is a reasonable one. This tradition appears in the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, where it is quite specific: Luke, the doctor from Antioch, disciple of the apostles, remained unmarried and died in Boegotia at age eighty-four”.​

Conclusion

So the conclusion is that Luke was in all probability a Gentile which is taken both from internal evidence (Scriptures) and from external evidence (tradition).

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

The Book of Acts – A didactic-histiography

Links have been provided that explain certain key words.

When we read through Acts, it does not matter if we consider it to be primarily theological or histiographical as it is still a book that was fully inspired by the Holy Spirit and it is as relevant today as it was to Luke’s audience.

Acts as a work of Ancient Historiography (Keener)

(Page 51) “I will finally conclude, in agreement with the majority of scholars, that Acts fits the ancient genre of history (a conclusion articulated and elaborated more fully in chs. 3-8). Specifically, it is (as other scholars have noted) apologetic historiography in the form of a historical monograph and written for a fairly popular audience

(Page 90) “Although scholars diverge regarding Acts’ more precise classification, the genre that scholars most commonly propose for Acts is some form of ancient historiography, including the preface to Luke’s first volume (Luke 1:1-4) and probably his use of speeches. If we conclude that Acts is a work of ancient historiography, its length requires us to understand it as a historical monograph (comparable to those of Sallus), in contrast to the larger multivolume histories of some ancient authors”.

(Page 115) Conclusion: Acts is history, probably apologetic history in the form of a historical monograph with a narrow focus on the expansion of the gospel message from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke’s approach focuses on primary characters and their deeds and speeches, as was common in the history of his day (allowing overlap with the biographic genre noted in ch. 2 above). Stating that Acts is history rather than a novel affects how we should read it. The following chapters examine the character of an ancient historiography more generally and of Acts in particular”.​

Even though it is acknowledged that Acts is written as an historical narrative, as a consequence of the soteriological-subsequence debate amongst Pentecostals, it has had the unintended burden of creating a situation where many commentators say that Luke is either in opposition to Paul’s views regarding his recognised position that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is soteriological, or that Luke simply provides information or insights that Paul has failed or forgotten to provide.

In recent years it has been broadly acknowledged by most (if not all) scholars that the position of subsequence, where the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is received sometime after our initial salvation, that it is based entirely on Lukan theology (the Book of Acts) or to be precise with the Gospel of Luke & Acts which scholars will frequently refer to as being a single cohesive book. Luke’s writings (Luke-Acts) is deemed to be highly charismatic in nature and his Gospel contains a number of charismatic metaphors not found in the other three Gospels.

This shifts the question as to the nature of Acts up a few steps as the supporters of the subsequence position have not only placed Luke’s writings in contrast to that of Paul’s but in actual opposition. As this statement cannot be left in isolation, this question has in part been addressed by the Canadian Pentecostal scholar Roger Stronstad. The most important work regarding the theology of the subsequence position was produced by Roger Stronstad in 1984 titled The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke: Trajectories from the Old Testament to Luke-Acts. This important work is still the standard reference for those who desire a theology to support the position of subsequence:

A review of Roger Stronstad’s The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke, AoG Enrichment Journal, by Martin Mittelstadt

“Stronstad is a pioneer in Pentecostal scholarship and among the first of Pentecostals to be taken seriously by the larger Christian academy. Unfortunately, many Pentecostals remain unaware of this monumental work. . .

While many theologians locate Luke’s primary purpose for writing Acts as a backdrop for the Pauline epistles (which they deem real theological material), Stronstad recognizes Luke as a theologian in his own right. Stronstad appeals to 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (“all Scripture is inspired&#8221 and challenges the fallacy that we must read Luke-Acts through the interpretive lens of the apostle Paul. Stronstad removes the mask of incompetence placed on Luke and validates Luke’s contribution to present day application of the Holy Spirit. . .

Stronstad’s conclusions remain critical for Pentecostal theology. He employs the term “charismatic” as an experiential equipping of the Holy Spirit for any vocational task to which an individual or group is called. Stronstad argues that Luke understands Spirit-reception not in Paul’s salvific manner but rather as divine enablement for mission through the Spirit. . .

On the other hand, many remain committed to instruction of this core distinctive but struggle to find valuable resources. Once again, I propose that Stronstad provides an unparalleled resource guide. Twenty-five years in print for our youthful movement may not be monumental for a Catholic or a Lutheran, but surely warrants attention in our tradition. . .

Given Pentecostal proclamation that the charismatic and vocational work of the Spirit remains normative for all Christians, I cannot commend a better biblical and theological presentation of life in the Spirit. Is it a Pentecostal classic? If not yet, it’s only a matter of time.

Martin Mittelstadt, Ph.D., is associate professor of biblical studies, Evangel University, Springfield, Missouri”.​

For those who hold to the subsequence position, this supposed contrast between Luke and Paul’s theologies tends to leave open the question as to how they are to describe the Book of Acts; as Stronstad has pointed out (in bold text above), the classic-Pentecostal understanding of the reception of the Holy Spirit recognises a disparity between Luke and Paul and as such they need to find a way of explaining the nature of Acts as compared to Paul’s writings. From my perspective, I struggle to see how an adequate explanation can be provided as to why there is supposed to be a disparity between Luke and Paul, which in my view has arisen due to the misreading of Luke’s material.

Even though I no longer hold to the position of subsequence we always need to have a good understanding of why we believe what we do, so when it comes to the classic-Pentecostal position you will find that Dr. Byron D. Klaus has produced a very helpful 35 page PowerPoint presentation which explains the views of those who hold to the position of subsequence (PDF version).

Even though I disagree with the overall thrust of this particular presentation (as I hold to the soteriological position), it is still very helpful as it does a superb job of describing the subsequence position. In my opinion, even though I disagree with some of its proposals, this particular PowerPoint is probably the best summary of this particular viewpoint that I have ever come across.

The AoG have produced a 14 page position paper on the subsequence position (AoG position, 14 page document, Baptism in the Holy Spirit). This document is certainly compulsory reading and it will be used later on in this study.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

This portion of the study will have particular relevance to those who are neither Pentecostal nor charismatic but have an interest with obtaining a better understanding of Full Gospel (Renewal) theology; particularly with the two Pentecostal positions regarding the method of the reception of the Holy Spirit.

For those of us who had our “crisis” experience where we began to move away from the classic-Pentecostal understanding of subsequence, there was the great concern that the soteriological (conversion-initiation) position might in some way diminish the important distinctive Pentecostal doctrine of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit along with the evidence of speaking in tongues.

This is a very real dilemma in that we had no wish to move away from the theological position which supports a power encounter with the Holy Spirit where it becomes relegated to the evangelical position where salvation is often little more than a conscious decision to repent and confess Jesus as Lord without fully experiencing the life changing infilling of the Eschatological Spirit (Acts 2:16-21). This Pentecostal distinctive which is at the very core of Pentecostal theology must be maintained otherwise we risk falling back into a rather lacklustre denominational experience where the Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s and 70’s thankfully allowed so many of us to break away from the shackles of historical denominational practice and thinking.

A little while back I came across a book titled Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology by Frank D. Macchia (2006) who is an AoG Theologian at Vanguard University in California. Macchia spends a lot of time in his book dealing with the two opposing views of the reception of the Holy Spirit, be it soteriological or one of subsequence. He has tried to find common ground between the two as he holds to a very high understanding of the Charismatic nature of the Gospel, with its emphasis with the Eschatological reception and down payment of the Holy Spirit as a precursor to the ‘future Kingdom of God -- which is still to come but is now here’.

He sees the Pentecostal Baptism in the Holy Spirit as being a ‘glossolalic’ understanding of Spirit baptism which the Pentecostal traditions must not let go of.

Frank D. Macchia, ‘Groans Too Deep for Words’, Journal of Pentecostal Theology, page 167

“Whether tongues were viewed as xenolalia or some form of transcendent glossolalia, their importance was the same. Here was a ‘baptism’ in the Spirit that allowed a weak human vessel to function as a veritable oracle of God. Though this is true of all prophetic speech, tongues as a cryptic language revealed the unfathomable depth and ultimate eschatological fulfilment of all prophetic speech, pointing to both the limits and the meaning of the language of faith. Without this ‘glossolalic’ understanding of Spirit baptism, there may not have been enough of a distinction between the Pentecostal and the Holiness understanding of the experience of the Spirit to warrant the founding of a separate movement”.​

For the classic-Pentecostal tongues is an integral sign of the subsequent Baptism in the Holy Spirit so the two cannot be separated. For those of us who believe that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is soteriological in that it is a part of our “conversion-initiation” experience then things can be a bit more complicated.

The soteriological position runs the possible risk of allowing the Evangelical (and cessationists) to say that if the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is received at the moment of our salvation, then what makes the Pentecostal understanding of the BHS so different from ours. As the soteriological understanding of the reception of the Holy Spirit not only says that all Believers have the Holy Spirit within them and that all Believers are in fact Baptised in the Holy Spirit, this means that the Evangelical and even the cessationist can say that as they are also Baptised in the Holy Spirit then why do we need tongue as evidence of this; but this is a misunderstanding of the Biblical record.

The Full Gospel position

Even though I have referred to the subsequent position of scholars such as Strondstadt and Menzies, who are certainly two very important voices within the Pentecostal community with regard to their classic-Pentecostal position of subsequence; Frank Macchia (who disagrees with their position) has rightfully given them their due credit where they have raised the importance aspect of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit being not merely sacramental but one of power.

Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology, Frank D. Macchia (2006)

(Pg.23) “New Testament scholars Roger Stronstad and Robert Menzies have breathed some new life into Pentecostal polemics on Spirit baptism by focusing attention on Luke’s charismatic theology. What comes through in their work is the conviction that Pentecostals are exegetically justified in making Spirit baptism a charismatic experience rather than an initiation into Christ by faith or the sacraments of initiation.​

Here is where the Pentecostal can fall back to the Scriptural record where the soteriological reception of the Holy Spirit is normally evidenced by the new initiates speaking in tongues. This does not mean that it is necessary to speak in tongues to be saved but the Scriptures do indicate that tongues normally accompanies the reception of the Spirit.

This is evidenced by the following passages which is the main point of this study. Traditionally the classic-Pentecostal has read these passages as supporting the subsequence position but those who hold to the soteriological position will say otherwise and with good reason.

As I’ve already mentioned, the classic-Pentecostal position with subsequence is definitely on the decline within our scholarly circles and for two primary reasons.

1. Even the classic-Pentecostal will accept that Paul does not mention anything about subsequence and most will recognise that his Pneumatology is entirely soteriological; which is why we have the classic-Pentecostal position that "Lukan theology" either replaces or improves on Paul's theology in the Epistles.
   
2. When the following passages are correctly exegeted, it becomes very difficult to use them to support the classic-Pentecostal position.

Evidence for the soteriological (conversion-initiation) position:

1. Acts 2:1-4
2. Acts 8:14-24
3. Acts 8:34-39
4. Acts 10:44-48
5. Acts 19:1-6

Each passage will be addressed in separate posts.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

The following posts will address a well written 14 page position paper (PDF) on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as adopted by the General Presbytery of the AoG, 9-11 August, 2010. This paper naturally supports the position of subsequence and the document deserves to be carefully read by all Pentecostals and charismatics.

Before we look at the major passages within Acts, the position paper has mentioned where the AoG believes that it has additional support for the classic-Pentecostal understanding of subsequence.

Old Testament Background, AoG Position Paper, page 2

“The outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2) was the climax of God’s promises, made centuries before, about the institution of the new covenant and the coming of the age of the Spirit. The Old Testament is indispensable for understanding the coming of the Holy Spirit to believers under the new covenant. Two prophetic passages are especially significant—Ezekiel 36:25–27 and Joel 2:28,29:​

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws (Ezekiel 36:25-27).​

The Ezekiel passage speaks about cleansing new believers from all spiritual filthiness and replacing their heart of stone with a “new heart” and a “heart of flesh.” This takes place as a result of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who will enable them to live in obedience to God's decrees and laws. The promise predicts the New Testament teaching about regeneration. Jesus spoke of the need to be “born of the Spirit” (John 3:5,8) and Paul, echoing Ezekiel's prophecy, says that God “saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The result is an altered lifestyle made possible by the indwelling Spirit.

Joel’s prophecy differs substantially from Ezekiel’s. It speaks of a dramatic pouring out of the Spirit that results in prophesying, dreams, and visions. The term charismatic in our day has come to identify those who believe in and experience, personally and corporately, the dynamic way the Spirit manifests himself through various gifts, such as those enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12:7–10.[4] On the Day of Pentecost, the disciples were “filled with the Holy Spirit,” which Peter says was in fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Acts 2:16–21).
The prophecies of Ezekiel and Joel, however, do not predict two separate, historic comings of the Holy Spirit. They represent two aspects of the one overall promise that includes both the Spirit’s indwelling and His filling or empowering of God’s people [5]”.​

Footnotes:

[4] The Greek word charisma, however, has a wider range of meanings in the NT. Its basic meaning is that it is a gracious gift.
[5] See I. Howard Marshall's, Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.​

Response:

The Ezekiel 36 passage is certainly more than problematic as God is admonishing a rebellious Israel where he informs them that he will one day take them out of the nations and place them in their own land. As this passage is more likely referring to the re-establishment of the nation of Israel (post 1948), it is difficult to see how it can be applied to the New Covenant with regard to regeneration as being separate to the Baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Where Ezekiel 36 referred to the nation of Israel, Joel 2 is a completely different situation where we are told in verse 28 that the Father will “pour out my Spirit on all people” which has a global application which Peter points out to the crowd in Jerusalem. Any attempt to link these two passages together as if they were speaking of two aspects of one event is nothing less than a major stretch of the imagination.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

AoG Position Paper, page 4

The Day of Pentecost

“The Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–21). The first instance of disciples receiving a charismatic-type of experience occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4). The coming of the Spirit on that day was unprecedented; it was a unique, historic, once-for-all and unrepeatable event connected with the institution of the new covenant. But as Acts indicates, at a personal level the disciples’ experience at Pentecost serves as a paradigm for later believers as well 8:14–20; 9:17; 10:44–48; 19:1–7).

Was the Pentecost experience of the disciples “subsequent” to their conversion? On one occasion Jesus told seventy-two of His disciples to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). It is not necessary to pinpoint the precise moment of their regeneration in the New Testament sense of that word. Had they died prior to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, they surely would have gone into the presence of the Lord. Many scholars, however, see the disciples’ new-birth experience occurring at the time the resurrected Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ” (John 20:22).

It is significant that the New Testament nowhere equates the expression “filled with the Holy Spirit” (verse 4) with regeneration. It is always used in connection with persons who are already believers”.​

Response:

• "The first instance of disciples receiving a charismatic-type of experience occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4)".​

This is certainly true, where both positions, be it of subsequence or soteriological are in full agreement. On the Day of Pentecost where the Church was inaugurated by the Holy Spirit falling upon man, the subsequence position will see the situation in John 20:22 as being the proto-type for the non-charismatic reception of the Spirit where the new initiate is first redeemed and cleansed from his sin; they will connect this back to Ezekiel 36:25-27. [see post #5]

The AOG see Acts 2 as being a fulfilment of Joel 2:28-29 which in their view represents the charismatic infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. This two stage-reception theory is not deemed by the AoG as being two separate arrivals of the Holy Spirit but that these two OT passages “represent two aspects of the one overall promise”, pg.3 AoG Position Paper.

• "The coming of the Spirit on that day was unprecedented; it was a unique, historic, once-for-all and unrepeatable event connected with the institution of the new covenant".​

I presume that they are referring to how the Holy Spirit fell upon the Church with the signs of “a rushing wind” and “fire”; if this is the case then we certainly would not expect to see this being repeated.

• "But as Acts indicates, at a personal level the disciples’ experience at Pentecost serves as a paradigm for later believers as well 8:14–20; 9:17; 10:44–48; 19:1–7)".​

As the AoG sees this passaged as supposedly speaking of subsequence then I would have to disagree; from the soteriological perspective it can be said that as the Holy Spirit fell upon the assembled disciples for the first, along time with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then it can certainly be deemed to be the norm.

• "Was the Pentecost experience of the disciples “subsequent” to their conversion? On one occasion Jesus told seventy-two of His disciples to “rejoice that your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20)".​

The AoG position on this point fails to recognise that the Disciples prior to the Day of Pentecost were still functioning under the framework of the Old Covenant with its demand that each and every Jew obeyed the Law. As the Disciples were in full compliance with the Law, not only with the Letter by the S/spirit of the Law, then they were indeed Righteous Jews, as were many other Jews who were still under the Mosaic Covenant but who had not yet heard of Jesus. Having their “names written in heaven” had nothing to do with the New Covenant birth.

• "It is not necessary to pinpoint the precise moment of their regeneration in the New Testament sense of that word. Had they died prior to the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, they surely would have gone into the presence of the Lord. Many scholars, however, see the disciples’ new-birth experience occurring at the time the resurrected Jesus “breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ” (John 20:22)".​

I appreciate their honesty with this point where they recognise a serious problem with their position. The soteriological position recognised that the Church and the Disciples were Born Again on the Day of Pentecost where Jesus had sent the Holy Spirit as the down payment until the return of the Lord. As for what occurred when Jesus ‘breathed the Spirit’ upon the Disciples, I’m not all that sure that too many are all that prepared to give a succinct answer as to what actually occurred on this unique and unrepeatable occasion.

In the OT we have examples of where the Holy Spirit came upon the prophets so that they could prophesy but when this was completed he removed himself from them. Even if the Holy Spirit had of fallen upon the Disciples, we do not know if the was a parallel to that of the OT Prophets where he may have removed himself some time prior to the Day of Pentecost.

• "It is significant that the New Testament nowhere equates the expression “filled with the Holy Spirit” (verse 4) with regeneration. It is always used in connection with persons who are already believers”.​

This is a good example of circular reasoning where it becomes, it must be true because I believe it is, therefore it must be true. As most (if not all) astute commentators who hold to the subsequence position recognise that Paul always equates the New Birth (or the Baptism in the Holy Spirit) as being soteriological, this point makes little sense.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:34-39)

Keener allocates 60 pages to this particular account (Acts: An Exegetical Commentary) but as we do not have any record of the Holy Spirit falling upon the Ethiopian Official then I will limit this post to primarily his status as either a possible proselyte, or merely that he was a ‘god-fearer’, or maybe just an interested party to the content of the scroll that he was carrying back to Ethiopia.

If little else, this particular post should help to clear up the common misconception that “God-fearers” were either Gentile proselytes who were accepted into the life of the Synagogue or temple or that they were believers in Jesus who had not had the opportunity or knowledge that they could be Baptised in the Holy Spirit.

(Keener, Page 1566) “Was the official a full proselyte (see comment on Acts 6:5) or only a God-fearer (see comment on Acts 10:2)? Some scholars doubt that Luke portrays him as a Gentile God-fearer; they protest the tension this would create with Cornelius’s conversion. But as argued in this section’s introduction, this official’s conversion is a private event unknown or relatively unknown to the church in Jerusalem, in contrast, to the other matter, which was debated by the Jerusalem church (Acts 11:3-18). Others object that only a full proselyte would likely have an Isaiah scroll. But since God fearers attended synagogues, where Torah (often the LXX) was read, possession of such a scroll would signify not one’s circumcised status but one’s wealth. Could not wealth secure an Isaiah scroll in Alexandria or Jerusalem? (And would not one who took time and expense for the journey be more likely to purchase a scroll regardless of his precise convert status?) The official is not a nonproselyte because of a lack of full commitment, like most God-fearers; he simply was not able to become a full convert by virtue of his being a eunuch (Deut 23:1). Further, special arrangements were sometimes made for both converts and God-fearers of high status, as may be seen from discussions surrounding the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene (e.g., Jos. Ant 20.41) . . .

(Page 1567) The arguments in favour of this man’s being a eunuch (and hence merely a God-fearer) are stronger than those favouring his being a full proselyte. First, Luke has already mentioned a proselyte in 6:5; if this narrative does not move further toward the Gentile mission than that incident, it probably would not merit so much space in Luke’s narrative. Luke knows how to speak of “proselytes”, that he does not do so here suggests that he does not intend a proselyte. . .

(Page 1579) The Encounter (Acts 8:28-31)

“When Philip comes alongside the official’s carriage, he hears him providentially reading from a passage in Isaiah, and the official welcomes Philip’s help in understanding the passage. One depending on god’s providential guidance would recognize that the timing was no coincidence (cf., e.g., 2 Kgs 8:4-5). Also, the passage may remind those involved in the mission (Acts 1:8) that God has already worked before their arrival (cf. also the readiness of Cornelius in ch. 10).

(Page 1583) Reading

“How would Philip hear the man reading? Most reading in antiquity was done aloud; some even regrd exceptions such as Ambrose (Aug. Conf. 6.3) as unusual. There is a fair amount of evidence for quite reading with lips moving, but his was not the most common method; because ancients used continuous script instead of dividing words or punctuation, reading aloud was important to catch the flow of thought. Ancient writers expected their works to be read aloud, and hence some even designed them for pleasant sounds and melodic recitation. . .​

Was the scroll written in either Hebrew or Greek?

(Page 1584) Language

"Meroe had its own language, with (by this period) an alphabetic script. The official was probably not reading a scroll in Meroitic, but would he be reading it in Hebrew? If Philip was primarily Greek-speaking, how could he talk with the Ethiopian or understand that he was reading from Isaiah? It is possible that Philip could have known enough Hebrew to recognize a Scripture text, but it is probably too much for us to expect a Nubian God-Fearer to read Hebrew poetry as well as converse with Philip in (presumably) Greek. . .

No person of means, however, would come from Ethiopia to Jerusalem without a translator or some knowledge of language. As a presumably educated member of the Nubian elite, this treasurer would likely speak several language, including those relevant for trade ties with places such as Greek speaking Alexandria in Egypt, to Meroe’s north. Greek appears in Nubian inscriptions, including one mentioning the queen in 13. B.C.E. Coins from nearby Axum, dated before Ezana’s conversion (in the early fourth century), use Greek inscriptions as well as a Roman design and a gold standard. An earlier king of Meroe appearing in Greek sources is said to have had a Greek education, which suggests one or more teachers of Greek there. Certainly knowledge of Greek would have been essential in relations with Ptolemaic Egypt, and in this period the ruling elite in Egypt, as in much of the eastern empire, continued to speak Greek.

Would Philip the Hellenist have recognized the words of Isaiah if they were being read in Hebrew, especially with a less familiar Nubian accent? It is possible that the official was reading Hebrew in a manner similar to the readings in Jerusalem, but it is no less possible that he was reading the Greek version, which prevailed in Alexandria and in most of the Mediterranean Diaspora. . ."​

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

Even though this topic is about the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it would be helpful to keep in mind that this thread is intensely Trinitarian which Frank D. Macchia provides a superb analogy of this Trinitarian theology in his book, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology on page 166:

“When one is born again, one is born in the context of a family, the church. It is the family named by the Father (Eph 3:14), in solidarity with the Son (Rom 8:29), and born of the Spirit by the grace of God (John 1:12 – 13). It is a family that is elected by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified in the Spirit (1 Peter 1:2; Eph. 1:4 – 14). The new life of the Spirit allows us to “bide” in Christ and he in us as the Father abides in Christ and Christ in the Father (John 14:20; 17:21). The Father draws us to the Son by the agency of the Spirit (John 6:44) so that we can pray “Abba” to the heavenly Father in Christ (Rom. 8:15 – 16)”.​

 

[Biblicist]

The Samaritans (Acts 8:14-24) AOG Position Paper, page 5

“The Samaritan “Pentecost” demonstrates that one may be a believer and yet not have a charismatic type of spiritual experience. The following observations show that the Samaritans were genuine followers of Jesus prior to the visit of Peter and John: (1) Philip clearly proclaimed to them the good news of the gospel (verse 5); (2) they believed and were baptized (verses 12,16); (3) they had “accepted [dechomai] the word of God” (verse 14), an expression synonymous with conversion (Acts 11:1; 17:11; see also 2:41); (4) the laying on of hands by Peter and John was for them to “receive the Holy Spirit” (verse 17), a practice the New Testament never associates with receiving salvation; and (5) the Samaritans, subsequent to their conversion, had an observable and dramatic experience of the Spirit (verse 18).

“The Samaritan “Pentecost” demonstrates that one may be a believer and yet not have a charismatic type of spiritual experience".​

This could easily be a case of arguing a point from within a preconceived position as we do not know if the Samaritans who were acknowledged as being Believers in Acts 8:12-13 were in fact regenerated. Was their baptism little different to that of John’s in that they simply “believed Philip” (v.12) and were they maybe more attracted to the powerful signs that Philip was demonstrating than they were with the life-changing experience of acknowledging Jesus as Lord and being filled with the Spirit? I agree with Keener (Page 1518) that they can be rightfully deemed to be ‘believers’ but I would need to add in a qualification that we have no indication that they had been regenerated prior to the arrival of Peter and John from Jerusalem.

So were the Samaritans prior to the arrival of Peter and John Born Again and fully regenerated Believers or were they in the unusual position of being “God-fearers” who had accepted that Jesus was the Messiah but they lacked a proper knowledge of the Gospel where they were to receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit at their conversion? Was it that Philip, who found himself in an unusual situation (having been forced to leave Jerusalem), that he was maybe a bit unsure with how far he was supposed to go with the Samaritans without any prior instructions from the leaders in Jerusalem?

We have a possible counterpart to Philips preaching in Samaria with that of the 70 who Jesus had earlier sent to preach to the Jews prior to his Ascension. The Jews saw the powerful signs that the 70 were doing and they even realised that they were representatives of Jesus; as the Spirit had not been sent prior to the Ascension, we can easily appreciate that none of them were regenerated and much the same could be said for the Samaritans who had ‘apparently’ been told nothing of the promise of the Holy Spirit prior to the arrival of Peter and John.

As much as I agree with Keener that the Samaritans could be seen as being Believers, they problem we have is that we have no indication that they were regenerated Believers. If any of these Samaritan Believers had of died prior to the arrival of Peter and John I have no doubt that they would have gone to be with the Lord but of course the same can be said for the ‘unregenerate’ thief on the Cross.

Even though they were undoubtedly Believers, unless they were regenerated Believers where they had been sealed with the Holy Spirit prior them receiving the fullness of the Spirit through their being properly taught, then their conversion experience where they were filled with the Spirit cannot be deemed to be one of subsequence.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

Addendum to post #8 The Samaritans (Acts 8:14-24)

During 1970 an important book was released on the Baptism in the Holy Spirit by an Evangelical scholar by the name of James D.G. Dunn. The book was a critique of classic-Pentecostal theology of the day and even though Dunn was highly critical with how the early Pentecostals often exegeted their positions from within the Scriptures, he at least recognised that the Scriptures do broadly support the Pentecostal position though he stressed that we needed to adjust our thinking in some areas. link

‘Like earlier “enthusiasts” Pentecostals have reacted against both these extremes. Against the mechanical sacramentalism of extreme Catholicism and the dead biblicist orthodoxy of extreme Protestantism they have shifted the focus of attention to the experience of the Spirit. Our examination of the NT evidence has shown that they were wholly justified in this. That the Spirit, and particularly the gift of the Spirit, was a fact of experience in the lives of the earliest Christians has been too obvious to require elaboration….It is a sad commentary on the poverty of our own immediate experience of the Spirit that when we come across language in which the NT writers refer directly to the gift of the Spirit and to their experience of it, either we automatically refer it to the sacraments and can only give it meaning when we do so…, or else we discount the experience described as too subjective and mystical in favour of a faith which is essentially an affirmation of biblical propositions, or else we in effect psychologize the Spirit out of existence.

The Pentecostal attempt to restore the NT emphasis at this point is much to be praised’.

(Baptism in the Holy

​

Spirit, pp. 225-226)​

This book seemed to have gone unnoticed by the Pentecostals and probably with many charismatics of the 70’s and 80’s where his material first became known to most of us probably through Gordon Fee’s important book on First Corinthians in 1988. Unfortunately, his 40 references to Dunn probably went unnoticed by many of us as Dunn was for most us simply one of the many obscure scholars that Fee referred to.

It may have been that Fee was instrumental by encouraging the Pentecostals to take a further look at Dunn’s material but until the 90’s (20 years Dunn’s book was published), there were probably very few Pentecostal and charismatic commentators who were capable of addressing his questions; but things have certainly changed since the Charismatic Renewal of the 60’s and 70’s. With the onset of the 90’s we have seen where many Pentecostals and charismatics have become well respected theologians which has allowed these scholars to address the important questions that this Evangelical scholar was asking of the Pentecostals; where we will undoubtedly continue to do for many years to come – better late than never I suppose.

Baptism in the Holy Spirit, James D.G. Dunn (1970, 2010), The Samaritans, Pages 55-72

Section quoted: pages 66 -68

“. . . (e) It is not sufficiently realized that in NT times the possession of the Spirit was the hallmark of the Christian. Cornelius's reception of the Spirit was unquestionable proof of his acceptance by God; just as the Ephesians' lack of the Spirit in Acts 19 was unquestionable proof that they had yet to come to full Christian faith.

Thus we are not surprised that Philip did not conclude, as many would today, 'They have been baptized, and therefore they have received the Spirit, even though neither we nor they know it.' For possession of the Spirit was not inferred from baptism, but the genuineness (or otherwise) of the faith expressed in baptism was proved by the reception (or otherwise) of the Spirit: if God responded to the baptizand's commitment by giving the Spirit, his acceptance of the commitment showed it to be genuine (the lesson Peter learned with Cornelius [II.17] and Paul practised with the Ephesians). 43 In other words, the Spirit's absence from and coming to the Samaritans is the critical factor in this narrative. Luke's aim is to highlight the difference between true and false Christianity, and he does so by devoting most attention to Simon (not Philip and not Peter) in order to draw out the ultimate contrast between him and the Samaritans. The narrative alternates between the Samaritans (vv. 5-8, u, 14-17) and Simon (vv. 9-11, 13, x8-z4)”.

At first each step taken by the Samaritans is paralleled by a similar step taken by Simon: they tum from magic to Philip, so does he; they believe Philip, so does he; they are baptized by Philip, so is he. But then their paths diverge - they receive the Spirit, whereas Simon receives only a curse. This contrast is the climax of the whole incident - the Samaritans receive the Spirit, which indicates that they have come to genuine faith, but Simon continues to see and be interested in only the external. For Luke, as for Paul, the great difference between the Christian and non-Christian is that only the former has received the Spirit; to illustrate this fundamental belief is one of Luke's principal reasons for including this narrative.

(f) Perhaps the full flowering of the Samaritans' faith was also delayed by the cold wind of religious and racial animosity which blew from Jerusalem to Samaria: they lacked the assurance that they were really accepted into a Christian community so far composed of Jews and proselytes, and the fact that their evangelist was a Hellenist independent of Jerusalem (8.1-3) could not dispel their fears. This would be a further reason why the two most senior apostles were sent to Samaria. And it would only be when Peter and John, as chief representatives of the Jerusalem Church, proffered the right hand of fellowship that this particular stumbling block was removed and they came to fullness of faith in the One who had died and risen again at Jerusalem.

It is unfortunate that Luke has compressed the account of Peter and John's mission so much. Evidently he wants to make only two points: the Samaritans received the Spirit only through the apostles' ministry (reiterated six times in six verses), and the exposure of Simon. He stops for nothing else. No explanations are given as to why the Spirit was not received before, no indications as to what reaction greeted the news that the Spirit had not been given, no hint of what Peter and John said on arrival (contrast II.ff., 23:I9.Iff.). Certain things are made clear: they had only been baptized; they had not received the Spirit; Simon's conversion was spurious.

Certain things are implied: the ideas Philip used, the nature of their response, the dramatic nature of the Spirit's coming. And certain conclusions drawn from Luke's thought overall have to be applied to the passage: the Spirit both as the hallmark of the new age and of the Christian, the man of the new age, and as God's response to the act of faith (see pp. 9If. below). The mistake of many commentators is to assume that because the conditions of 2.38 had apparently been fulfilled, therefore they were Christians and/or the Spirit had been given. The NT way is rather to say: Because the Spirit has not been given, therefore the conditions have not been met. This is why Luke puts so much emphasis on the Samaritans' reception of the Spirit (vv. I5-20), for it is God's giving of the Spirit which makes a man a Christian, and, in the last analysis, nothing else. . .”​

Dunn, with his 17 pages regarding the conversion of the Samaritan’s has done a superb job with showing how their reception of the Spirit through the ministry of Peter and John was initial and not one of subsequence.

See Peanut Gallery: http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

Paul’s conversion (Acts 9:17)

AoG Statement of Faith, page 5​

“The experience of Saul of Tarsus also demonstrates that being filled with the Holy Spirit is an identifiable experience beyond the Spirit’s work in regeneration. Three days after his encounter with Jesus on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:1–19), he was visited by Ananias. The following observations are important:

(1)Ananias addressed him as “Brother Saul,” which probably indicates a mutually fraternal relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ;
(2) Ananias did not call on Saul to repent and believe, though he did encourage him to be baptized (Acts 22:16);
(3) Ananias laid his hands on Saul for both healing and being filled with the Spirit; and
(4) There was a time span of three days between Saul’s conversion and his being filled with the Spirit”.​

The AoG’s position regarding Paul’s conversion is certainly more than problematic in that they are reading this account not so much from within Luke’s historical narrative but from within their own doctrinal position; it is certainly case of where doctrinal prejudice has added far too much into this account than what we can reasonably deduce from it. The main question that arises from this account is when was Paul actually saved, was it on his way to Damascus after his encounter with the Lord or was some time prior to where Ananias laid his hands on Paul?

(1)Ananias addressed him as “Brother Saul,” which probably indicates a mutually fraternal relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ;

Acts, Keener pages 1660-1667

Pg.1663 “Part of the debate about the timing of Paul’s conversion has hinged on what Ananias means by “brother”. Insofar as ancient Mediterranean society was group orientated, close bonds within groups would lend themselves to fictive kinship ties. (Thus, for example, one could think of an older woman affectionately as “mother.”) The concept of fictive kinship is widely recognized in anthropological literature. Patterns of such language vary throughout the world. In one culture, children may call their mother “sister” if they all live with her parents; a people might employ one kind of language for biological relationships to designate another; many societies apply sibling language to certain parallel cousins; in some societies spouses apply sibling terms for each other; and so forth. In many cultures those who describe others with kinship terms feel as close to them as to natural kin.

Central as sibling language is to Pauline ethics, kinship language was in no wise “uniquely Christian.” Literal genetic brotherhood created special bonds, making it ideal as a figure for other close relationships. . .

Pg.1664 Sharing common character and conviction also created fictive kinship. Such titles designate affection: one could love those with whom one grew up as one’s sisters; once could generously display affection by means of the term “brother” even to a stranger to whom one wished to show hospitability. Most important here is that Jewish people could address fellow Jews as brothers. As rabbis called their masters “fathers” and their disciples “children”, they naturally could call another rabbi “brother”. . .​

(2) Ananias did not call on Saul to repent and believe, though he did encourage him to be baptized (Acts 22:16);
(3) Ananias laid his hands on Saul for both healing and being filled with the Spirit;
(4) There was a time span of three days between Saul’s conversion and his being filled with the Spirit”.

The problem with what we know about Paul’s direct encounter with the Lord is two-fold; the first being that Luke does not provide us with enough unambiguous information for us to make a definitive decision; the second is that Paul’s encounter and salvific process is unique within the Scriptures. As for me, I certainly cannot be sure as to when this actually occurred but as the Lord’s direct and unique intervention into the life of Paul was certainly dramatic, I can only surmise that Paul would have taken at least a couple of days to work through these dramatic and highly emotional events so I would surmise that he probably first received the Spirit (regeneration) when Ananias laid hands on him.

Keener, page 1661 “Ananias, however, does not in fact bring Paul the gospel here, in any case. Paul already knew something of Christian beliefs before his conversion (Acts suggest that at the least he had heard Stephen’s speech, probably in addition to interrogating believers [cf. 7:58; 8:3; 9:2; 22:4; esp. 26:11]); he embraced them when confronted by the revelation in 9:5 (on the genuineness of Saul’s conversion at the point, see comments on Acts 9:8). Luke claims that Ananias learns of Paul’s calling (9:15), but Luke also claims that Paul learned of it directly from the Lord (26:16-18). In Acts as well as in Galatians, Paul can omit Ananias from the testimony (26:18-19). Ananias’s role is to confirm the vision, reverse the blindness, and offer baptism, not to supplant direct revelation”.​

Summary

Was Paul regenerated (Born Again) moments after he received his vision from the Lord, or was he Born Again (regenerated) only when he received the Holy Spirit as Ananias laid hands on him? Given that Luke does not provide us with enough information to make a clear decision on this we can only surmise that his reception of the Holy Spirit was probably only moments (or hours) after he had made a conscious decision to repent.


See Peanut Gallery:http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

The Roman Centurion, his relatives and friends (Acts 10:44-48)

AoG Statement of Faith, page 5 [Bold and Underline text added]

“Household of Cornelius at Caesarea (Acts 10:44–48). The narrative about Cornelius reaches its climax with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon him and his household. He was not a Christian prior to Peter’s visit; he was a God-fearer—a Gentile who had forsaken paganism and embraced important aspects of Judaism without becoming a proselyte, that is, a full-fledged Jew. Apparently Cornelius’s household believed and were regenerated at the moment Peter spoke of Jesus as the one through whom “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (verse 43).

Simultaneously, it seems, they experienced an outpouring of the Spirit like the one on the Day of Pentecost, as Peter later told the leadership of the church in Jerusalem (11:17;15:8,9). The expressions used to describe that experience do not occur elsewhere in Acts to describe conversion: “the Holy Spirit fell upon” (10:44; cf. 8:16 [both references NASB Updated]); “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (10:45; 11:17; cf. 8:20); “poured out on” (10:45); “baptized with [en] the Holy Spirit” (11:16)”.​

There’s probably not much that can be said about this particular point, other than that the AoG appear to recognise that Peter and his associates recognised that regeneration had taken place as the Holy Spirit fell upon them with the evidence of speaking in tongues. If I am reading “The expressions used to describe that experience. . .” correctly, it may seem that the AoG are trying to say that due to some supposed peculiar Greek words that this was maybe a unique event; but if this was the case, then they would definitely be overstepping the mark by forcing their views into the passage which speaks not of subsequence but of the soteriological reception of the Spirit.

See Peanut Gallery:http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[Biblicist]

The 12 Ephesian disciples (Acts 19:1-6)

AoG Position Paper, page 5

(1) Were these men disciples of Jesus or disciples of John the Baptist? Throughout the Book of Acts, every other occurrence of the word “disciple” (mathētēs), with one exception, refers to a follower of Jesus. Luke’s reason for calling these men “some disciples” is that he was not sure of the exact number—“about twelve men in all” (verse 7). They were Christian believers in need of teaching; like Apollos (Acts 18:24–27), they needed to have “the way of God” explained “more adequately” (18:26).

(2) What did Paul mean by the question, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?” (a strict translation of verse 2). He sensed among them a spiritual lack, but did not question the validity of their belief in Jesus. Since in the Book of Acts the clause “to receive the Holy Spirit” refers to Spirit baptism (8:15,17,19; 10:47; see also 2:38), Paul is asking if they have had the experience of the Holy Spirit coming upon them in a charismatic way, as did indeed happen to them subsequently (verse 6).

(3) Does Paul agree with Luke that there is a work of the Spirit for believers that is distinguishable from the Spirit’s work in salvation? This incident at Ephesus, as well as Paul’s own experience (Acts 9:17), requires an affirmative answer”.​

The trouble with trying to base a doctrinal position on the passage is that even though the initial experiences of the Ephesian disciples occurred during a transition period for the church, where its doctrine and recorded Written Word were still in development; we simply do not know enough about these individuals in that we cannot be sure if they were baptised into Johns baptism with only the hope of the future arrival of Israel’s Messiah where they may have subsequently heard about the prophet Jesus back in Israel, or were they baptised after the Resurrection with the realisation that Jesus was indeed the Messiah but where they knew nothing more about him nor certainly with the provision of the Holy Spirit as a part of the New Covenant?

From the text of Acts 19:1-6 it is hard to accept that these men were indeed Born Again Christians where they probably only had a future hope of the prophet Jesus being their Messiah. From what we can read from the context it does appear that these men only became Christians after Paul prayed for them, where prior to receiving the Holy Spirit they were merely ‘hopeful disciples’ of some possible future hope that his man Jesus was the Messiah.

So for the Ephesian disciples the notion that their reception of the Spirit was one of subsequence (the classic-Pentecostal view) is simply too weak to support.

 

[Biblicist]

Praying in the Spirit (tongues): A comparison between Acts & 1 Corinthians

On a number of occasions I've made reference to how theologians refer to the classic-Pentecostal position that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is supposed to be subsequent to our initially being 'sealed' by the Spirit at the moment of our salvation; this perspective is deemed to be Lukan-theology and classic-Pentecostal theologians (virtually to the man) recognise that this position is only found in Luke's writings within Acts.

The more recent position is that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is soteriological (at salvation) where it is believed that all Believers are Baptised in the Holy Spirit at the moment of their initial conversion. Of course, most Pentecostals would expect that from the Scriptural account that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit would (ideally) be accompanied by the new initiate being able to speak in tongues.

I constructed the following chart having spent some time with a similar chart that was produced by Craig Keener in his four volume books on Acts; even though there are some similarities the two charts contain a number of major differences.

This post and the next will look at the possible differences regarding tongues in Luke's and Paul's writings.

In the next post I will expand on the points in this chart.

Right click and select 'View Image' to expand.

Spoiler: Lexicon analysis “Tongues” & “Others”

Friberg Lexicon (from BibleWorks 9)


(Act 2:4 NASB) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.


5515 γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ tongue; (1) literally, the organ of speech and taste tongue (MK 7.33); figuratively, as a means of verbal communication tongue, language (AC 2.11); (2) by metonymy tribe, people, or nation that speaks a common language (RV 5.9); (3) as a religious technical term for glossalalia tongues(-speaking), understood variously to be unintelligible ecstatic utterance (1C 14.2), heavenly language (1C 13.1), or foreign languages not learned through natural means by the speaker (AC 2.4); (4) as the shape of fire forked flames (AC 2.3)


<1100> γλῶσσα glossa

Meaning: the tongue, a language

Origin: from a prim. root γλωχ- gloch- (projecting point)

Usage: tongue(25), tongues(25).


Notes:

1 Or languages

2 Or ability to speak out

a Mat 10:20; Act 1:5, Act 1:8; Act 4:8, Act 4:31; Act 6:3, Act 6:5; Act 7:55; Act 8:17; Act 9:17; Act 11:15; Act 13:9, Act 13:52

b Mar 16:17; 1Co 12:10f; 1Co 14:21


. . . . . . .


11856 ἕτερος, τέρα, ον with a basic meaning other, different; (1) qualitatively another of a different kind, different, not identical with what was previously referred to (RO 7.23; GA 1.6); (2) numerically, denoting a new member distinct in kind from those that preceded another, someone else, something else (1C 12.8-10); in lists some . . . some (LU 8.6-8); (the first) . . . the second . . . the third (LU 14.19, 20); (3) substantivally ὁ ἕ. one's neighbor, the other fellow (RO 2.1); τῇ ἑτέρᾳ on the next day (AC 20.15); ἐν ἑτέρῳ in another place, elsewhere (HE 5.6); (4) as qualifying γλώσσαι (tongues) foreign or different languages (AC 2.4)

<2087> ἕτερος heteros

Meaning: other

Origin: of unc. or.

Usage: another(31), another man(1), another one(2), any other(1), different(6), else(2), neighbor(3), next(3), one(1), other(31), other person(1), others(13), someone else(1), strange(1), strangers(1).


Notes:

1 Or languages

2 Or ability to speak out

a Mat 10:20; Act 1:5, Act 1:8; Act 4:8, Act 4:31; Act 6:3, Act 6:5; Act 7:55; Act 8:17; Act 9:17; Act 11:15; Act 13:9, Act 13:52

b Mar 16:17; 1Co 12:10f; 1Co 14:21


BibleWorks™ Copyright © 1992-2013 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. BibleWorks was programmed by Michael S. Bushell, Michael D. Tan, and Glenn L. Weaver. All rights reserved.

[/quote

See Peanut Gallery:http://www.christianforums.com/t7851328/#post66621589

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

As no new teaching posts have been made in the last two weeks, this thread is being closed.

MOD HAT OFF​